The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

View Quote

The U.S. was not a signatory, but does abide by the policy. Thus, hollowpoint and softpoint bullets are verboten, but frangible bullets are not. Letter of the law, you know. See [url]http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/dec99-03.htm[/url] for the whole text. (Edited to add URL)

Why in the hell do think they've been showing "Personal Lubricant" commercials so much latlety on television..............it's to minimize the damage when we are truly F**ked!!! - Fireguy3

I think it's because of the expansion of "dum-dum" bullets and the horrific wounds that they cause. Dates way back to the Geneva Convention, I believe.
I guess that they are thinking that it's much better to get hit by a FMJ high velocity round.
Edited to say " or the Hague Convention". I gotta go back to history class.

The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.

View Quote

The U.S. was not a signatory, but does abide by the policy. Thus, hollowpoint and softpoint bullets are verboten

View Quote

Nope, "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body" are verboten. Not all HPs do this. See [url]http://www.prostar.com/web/sniper/article2.html[/url]
for details.
Also, the Hague Accords only cover "international armed conflict" so most of the recent military escapades are not covered.
[edited to remove all that red text]

yep becouse back in the old days it wasnt considered human to use em for some reason it was ok to shoot em with a FMJ which would blow a hole thru u but not a hollowpoint or a SP witch would inflict more tramma putting your ass out of its misery quicker

FWIW
Very interesting reading!
He should write a book if he doesnt already??
IMHO? He is suspect to his validity by his Russian born, well read use of composition? in english? as well as being in Arizona?
But? I'm not sayin it is not a valid recollection?
It is hard to tell, based on my intrigue of the topic.

I have heard countries don't really mind using FMJ because a wounded man is more of a distraction/liability to a fighting unit than a dead soldier.
There is a great scene in the book, "Thin Red Line", where two wounded screaming GI's are caught on a hill. The Japanese could finish off the wounded Americans but use them as bait to shoot their rescuers.
Also FMJ is more reliable and less leading.

When They Knock Down Your Front Door, How You Going To Come? With Your Hands On Your Head Or On The Trigger Of Your Gun?Bassist Paul Simonon-The Clash

Dum-dums were not banned because of the wounds they cause, they were banned because they are harder for medical personnel to treat. You've got to consider what field medical conditions were like in WWI. Things are bad enough as it is without the doctor having to go digging around inside trying to find little pieces of jacket that seperated.

If you shoot a soldier with a HP,SP round there is a very good chance no matter where you hit him he will die instantly or soon from lose of blood. a dead soldier is a dead soldier and his unit will get to him when the battle is over.
Shooting a soldier with a FMJ means for the most part small exit wound..better chance of survival and now you have a wounded comrade in the combat zone. The theory we were taught is a wounded soldier takes 2 other soldiers to drag him out of the battle field. There is 3 soldiers tied up for the price of one round.
Of course with incoming artillery rounds,grenades,machine gun fire,land mines,mortars,air strikes,etc,etc this theory goes down the crapper.

Originally Posted By Jim-Scoutten:There's no way to clean up GD.

Posted By Bed_Head:And yes, all women know the power of the boobies.... and the pie too.